Three articles caught my eye in the AFR today:
"Wealthy selfies crimp corporate growth" I am not certain what world Sir Rod Eddington lives in but it certainly is not mine. I suspect he will not be relying on his super when he retires. I would like Directors to act in the best interests of shareholders. I am happy with either growth or dividends. I am unhappy if I get neither. The article goes on to say that companies are struggling to see where growth will come from but also that they have plenty of cash but cannot see the opportunities hence are paying dividends to keep investors happy. It seems to me that unless you put all your money into banks and TLS, that time has gone. And if one had a lot of money in banks to get good dividends, some of that capital has gone.
"Inheritance bonanza funded by super" It is reported that the average Australian retiree has assets of $110,000 when they reach 80 as though this is too high. I think it is too low, especially as many people approaching retirement will live beyond 80. Given the current estimates for the average amount of money held in super, I would have thought inheritance will not be a huge issue for most.
Finally, "Passive strategies pass their use-by date" This discusses the need for investors to develop more active strategies to get better returns. Just what those strategies are is not elucidated but implied and involves some more sophisticated investment tools. Some of these such as options and CFD for example, are hard for the average SMSF trustee to get their head around. Maybe trustees who cannot use such tools would be better off with their money in index based funds rather than relying on their stock picking skills. My stock picking skills were great in a booming market but a tighter market shows them up for what they really are -just average.
